Breaking the chains, winning the games, and saving Western Civilization.

Wednesday, July 9, 2014

Female education is dysgenic

I've commented in the past about the insanity of any society that prioritizes the education of its women over preparing them to be wives and mothers. After all, the one and only thing any society actually NEEDS from its women, the one and only thing humanity actually needs from its female members, is for them to propagate the citizenry and the species. Powerpoint presentations and prospective cancer cures are all very nice, but they are, strictly speaking, unnecessary luxuries without which the species has survived since before the dawn of recorded human history.

Societies without children, on the other hand, tend to terminate within a single generation.

Since we know intelligence is heritable, it has long been obvious that educating women to the point that they decline to breed was bound to have long-term implications, especially if the women least likely to have children tended to be the most intelligent women. The hypergamous nature of women being what it is, it logically follows that unless the most intelligent women can be supplied with a selection of prospective mates who are more intelligent and more educated than they are, they will increasingly refuse to breed. This has observably been the case, and now the negative effect of encouraging equality in education has been quantified:

This study estimates the effect of dysgenic trends in Taiwan by exploring the relationships among intelligence, education and fertility. Based on a representative adult sample, education and intelligence were negatively correlated with the number of children born. These correlations were stronger for females. The decline of genotypic intelligence was estimated as 0.82 to 1.33 IQ points per generation for the Taiwanese population.

What feminists consider progress is literal intellectual regression. Feminism is not only the most evil and incoherent ideology in human history, its natural consequence is the literal enstupidification of any society that permits it to take root.

The connection between the theory of Game and the continuation of civilization should now be readily apparent to even the most dubious skeptic. There is no conceptual model that better describes and predicts what has been observed taking place over the last fifty years in the West.

Powerpoint presentations and prospective cancer cures are all very nice, but they are, strictly speaking, unnecessary luxuries without which the species has survived since before the dawn of recorded human history.

More to the point, the necessary things WILL get done by men. That's what we do! The one thing we can't do... is have babies.

When I finally started questioning lies I'd believed about men and women, couldn't help notice the irony of promoting women to behave as men rather than promote/encourage qualities which make women women.

Yes, those foolish women, fed the same lie from the cradle by the very men they love and trust--their fathers, brothers, and friends. Why should they believe their own "Dear Husbands", when Hubby bids them hire out the raising of their children to "qualified" strangers and the "useless" keeping of their homes to servants and automation, and hie themselves out to earn a weekly cheque to pay for it?

Why would any woman believe the blissful dreaming-aloud of men who speak of sterilising themselves to avoid being "sucked dry by chilimony", of replacing Woman with artificial wombs and sexbots, of "going their own way" and "spinning plates" and never marrying?

No, I cannot imagine why a woman would think her only value and only security lay in fending for herself as the men do. I cannot fathom why a woman would long to be regarded as something other than a parasite, a liability, or a ball-and-chain. After all, what self-respecting woman would aspire to be regarded as more than a slave, a toy, or a leech?

"And literally insane. RSM has been disassembling feminism for some time now, he seems to have narrowed the start of it down to a woman named Shulamith Firestone, who was quite literally insane."

It was around long before Firestone, who was a radical feminist Jewish lesbian who became schizophrenic. Look up Margaret Sanger, who promoted abortion and in fact wanted to eradicate blacks as an utterly inferior race. You can thank her for "Planned Parenthood" and abortion mills.

Any potential increase to human intelligence shall have to rely on intelligent men banging idiot women. Feminism is relegating female intelligence to the dustbin. Womyn shall one day assume the position whether they like it or not.

Brian, while Firestone was an influential Feminist theorist she wasn't born until 1945, and wasn't active until 1967. There were other feminists before Firestone. Though Firestone was particularly damaging in her efforts. You are correct that she was severely mentally ill. Her writings read like the ramblings of a drug addict.

"After all, the one and only thing any society actually NEEDS from its women, the one and only thing humanity actually needs from its female members, is for them to propagate the citizenry and the species"

This is as false as declaring that the only thing the biological equation requires from men is their expendability. In truth we know that the value men bring to society far exceeds reproduction, and their absence from the equation results in chaos, confusion, high crime rates, economic difficulties, and other assorted miseries. Men play a huge role in the spiritual equation, too.

Society needs a whole lot from women, besides our ability to bear children. It needs our mercy, our compassion, and our ability to see the inner beauty in the world. Men need our eyes to perceive things in ways they cannot, and they need us as motivation in order to explore, innovate, and create.

"Since we know intelligence is heritable, it has long been obvious that educating women to the point that they decline to breed was bound to have long-term implications, especially if the women least likely to have children tended to be the most intelligent women"

Education and intelligence do not go hand in hand. Listen to some of the feminist Phd's on TV and then tell me that we are educating our best and brightest. Judging from the lack of intelligence I tend to encounter in highly educated women, I suspect we may actually be doing society a favor.

I agree with mindstar. My 93 year old grandmother is wiser than most college educated woman.

Women today, and men for that matter, can come out of university with $100K of student loan debt, and not know the first thing about how the world works. They will be experts in politically correct nonsense, however.

I'm afraid the objections to my comment appear thus far to be the male equivalent of "Wow, just wow".

Is snark the only argument you have anymore?

Women aren't pursuing career and education as a *response* to male abdication of responsibility. It has quite clearly happened the other way 'round. Yes there have always been cads, but by and large the men of American/Western/European society were happy to play the part of hard-working family men up until and even beyond the point where the culture no longer rewarded such sacrifice. Born in '65, I saw all this happen before my eyes.

And even now, most men would still be willing to make the sacrifice of marriage and parenthood in return for a devoted wife who keeps the home fires burning, and isn't looking for just the right moment to cash out. They have just started to realize that it becomes less and less likely every year in our society.

Women were lured into this by cultural masterminds, and like Eve, they believed what they wanted to believe. Yes, most of the masterminds were men, but they are the elite psychopaths who mold society. The average man is just along for the ride, and doesn't want to be anymore.

The TL, DR version is that women get more of what they sleep with and less of what they friend zone. And as long as superficially charming (but unreliable) cads get laid more than dependable (but less sexy) beta provider types... well, you can figure out the rest.

On the other hand, most of those feminist phds are just naturally unpleasant and unattractive people. I'd venture to say that most of them wouldn't have reproduced anyway.

Exactly. As I like to remind women constantly, very few men give a shit about your credentials or career (we're looking for a mate/helpmeet, not an employee, teacher, or business partner). These are not only NOT attraction triggers, but turn-offs. If credentials or education were essential, I might as well marry a computer or a library.

His Lordship’s comment also seems to be based on a fallacious belief that if men just stop talking about beer, chips and chicks; if men just start “getting moral”, get good jobs, and offer themselves up as husbands and fathers, then women will automatically fall in line and offer themselves as upstanding wives and mothers.

And if men just start straightening up and flying right, well, then women will too – women will marry these ordinary guys, stay married to them, and happily raise these schlubby guys’ children. If men will just start “doing right”, well, women will too. And we will never have divorce, and men will get the sex they are entitled to as husbands; and wives will be happy.

The "scan until offended" crowd likely have missed the word prioritizes from the first sentence.

our ability to see the inner beauty in the world.

This "inner beauty" crap you keep yammering on about is contrary to the observable nature of women to be hypergamous as well as the sin most common in women - covetousness. If women were so adept at seeing inner beauty, they would not covet more/better incessantly. You say in one breath that men play a huge role in the spiritual equation, which is true, yet somehow separate beauty from that equation - proposing that men need women to see it? There is nothing beautiful that is not of God. Wife goggles are also an observable reality and something that significantly differentiates the value men place on the traits of "inner beauty" such loyalty, commitment and long suffering than women do. Hypergamy wouldn't be discussed if this came so naturally to women.

You undermine your argument by including these two paragraphs together:

Yes, those foolish women, fed the same lie from the cradle by the very men they love and trust--their fathers, brothers, and friends. Why should they believe their own "Dear Husbands", when Hubby bids them hire out the raising of their children to "qualified" strangers and the "useless" keeping of their homes to servants and automation, and hie themselves out to earn a weekly cheque to pay for it?

Why would any woman believe the blissful dreaming-aloud of men who speak of sterilising themselves to avoid being "sucked dry by chilimony", of replacing Woman with artificial wombs and sexbots, of "going their own way" and "spinning plates" and never marrying?

The number of women who are aware of the men espousing the views in the second paragraph, and the views themselves, is miniscule. Much less those actually influenced by them. Your first paragraph, however, hits the mark. Feminist fathers are responsible for maintaining feminism- more so even than feminist mothers or colleges or other sources of indoctrination. Feminist ideas take root easily in modern Western women because their minds were already a fertile ground prepared for such lies by their fathers, and to a less extent other male family and friends.

As for the role that husbands play, that is a more complicated dynamic. Some certainly contribute to the problem, but many are caught between a rock and a hard place. They can't move things in a positive direction without risking marital disaster and even if they do speak up and resist the feminist "frame" they have no power to do anything about it.

What makes it even worse is that it is well known that boys inherit much of their intelligence quota from their mothers, while girls tend to get it from both parents. So while an intelligent man can have an intelligent daughter even if the mother is stupid, it is very unlikely that an intelligent man will have an intelligent son with a stupid mother. I have seen this played out in real life. Unfortunately, the unintelligent women are breeding the most, which means we are headed for a future with lots of stupid men.

No. They're fed that lie from the cradle by the women who surround them: their mothers, sisters, and girlfriends.

Come on Deti, you know better than that. Feminist fathers are plentiful and probably do more damage to young women than anyone else. Don't tell me you don't know any- they are all around us. The men who push their daughters into competitive sports, into "an education", into careerism, into delaying marriage... the damage they do is incalculable. We know from studies that fathers have more of an influence than mothers on children after a certain age. So they are probably worse than the mothers when it comes to influencing their daughters towards feminism.

No. They're fed that lie from the cradle by the women who surround them: their mothers, sisters, and girlfriends.

Come on Deti, you know better than that. Feminist fathers are plentiful and probably do more damage to young women than anyone else.

Most feminist fathers are just the men along for the ride who haven't yet figured out where it ends. Remember, most men by definition are followers. They will parrot the lines of the social elite, hoping for their pat on the head for being good little boys.

Even so, it is obvious from voting records that men are less likely to be feminists than women.

I've seen "inner beauty" in many women. But it always seems like the ones who impress me with their inner beauty are also attractive on the outside. Lucky coincidence, that.

Wife goggles are also an observable reality

Heck, I can even testify to the existence of virtual wife goggles. Sometimes I'll see a woman's picture on a dating site, and maybe she's 35 or 40, still keeping her figure and and nice hair and skin, and I think, "You know, I could really imagine myself adoring her if I'd been sharing a life and sleeping with her for the past 10-20 years. I'd be tickled pink that she still looked that good; she'd make me feel like a king among men."

But as a prospective date, knowing that this, right now, is the best she'll ever look and feel, and it's downhill from here -- probably downhill in a hurry, at that age? Totally different.

Fair warning I've had two hours sleep in the past two nights so my ideas are going to be...different..

Why are we worried? It's liberals that aren't breeding. Look at San Francisco's non-existent birth rate. Compare it too conservative birthrates which are at or slightly above replacement levels. If it wasn't for our immigration problems we would be winning the big fight here.

There is the problem of all those lost IQ points. Assuming it's really that horrible of a loss, we can adapt.

I submit we require compulsory ovum harvesting for every woman that pursues graduate studies. Special emphasis on those that are in the hard sciences. This can be done in liu of requiring them to pay tuition and perhaps even student debt forgiveness is possible. The market rate for egg donation is $5,000.00 per. Woman who go to college for their MRS degree aren't the problem. And the ones who pursue a degree in Woman's and Gender Studies shouldn't be breeding anyway.

Now there is the purely technical problem of carrying these eggs to term.Good news Lois McMaster Bujold's Uterine Replicator isn't far off at all. All the technology is basically here now. No unobtainium required at this point just, R&D on existing technology and detail engineering.

I know what I'm talking about here extracorporeal extrauterine fetal incubation may be no more than 20 years away, 25 at the outside. It's being developed (*kinda sorta*) for fetal surgery.

Even so, it is obvious from voting records that men are less likely to be feminists than women.

Actually, voting records show men are less likely to be leftist feminists than women. They are, however, mostly rightist feminists, whether they realize it or not. And I would argue that that particular strain of feminism is more dangerous, as it is harder to observe and "treat."

@ cail

I've seen "inner beauty" in many women. But it always seems like the ones who impress me with their inner beauty are also attractive on the outside. Lucky coincidence, that.

Fascinatingly enough, I've noticed the same thing. I'm sure I've blogged about it at some point, but I can't remember exactly when/where. I will say that I think it is a feminine fallacy- the notion that there are many women out there with inner beauty but not outer beauty.

No, Her Ladyship, it's that everything you said is a parody of every bad feminist argument ever made.

Then it should not be difficult to refute them, Brianna.

His Lordship’s comment also seems to be based on a fallacious belief that if men just stop talking about beer, chips and chicks; if men just start “getting moral”, get good jobs, and offer themselves up as husbands and fathers, then women will automatically fall in line and offer themselves as upstanding wives and mothers.

Yes, clearly that is what I said. I could not possibly have meant, for instance, that even in your beloved Manosphere, there are still feminists speaking their lethal philosophy--and so far from being called to correction, they are revered as wise and worthy. Look you at the sidebar of this very weblog and tell me they are not.

I do not expect you to understand this, Deti, because when you are determined to misunderstand, you will do so at the cost of even sanity itself.

Good news Lois McMaster Bujold's Uterine Replicator isn't far off at all. All the technology is basically here now. No unobtainium required at this point just, R&D on existing technology and detail engineering.

Anytime you hear a woman say "man up," she is using shame to manipulate you into serving her interest.

My advice is, anytime someone tells you to "man up", assume they want you to act like some amalgam of characters played by John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, and Humphrey Bogart. Don't take shit from anyone (especially a woman), don't back down, follow through, have a sense of honor, always kiss the prettiest girl, and don't be afraid to walk away from a toxic woman.

Tomassi has a lovely post up, Game and Circumstance, that solves several riddles for me. Most of you guys, and certainly VD, really are a bunch of pretentious princes, who have no idea how the rest of the world lives. No wonder I find it so difficult to communicate with you, it's nearly like a clash of cultures.

I see, Lordship. You wish for men to return to beta ways, working and slaving in the hopes of attractive either nonexistent women, or ungrateful, undeserving women.

If men are to seek any sort of self improvement it should not be done with an eye toward attracting women. Moreover, men offering themselves up as husbands and fathers is the very last thing that women will find attractive; nor will that lead to lasting relationships and marriages.

Perhaps you see the Manosphere as merely male “feminists”. You’d be more at home with ZippyCatholic and his ilk, I think.

Moreover, Lordship, I tried it your way. I followed the rules, I was a good boy. I did what everyone told me to do. I straightened up and flew right, I stayed on the "straight and narrow", and followed that "old time religion".

I grew up and did the same thing -- I was "moral", I got a good job, I followed the rules, I offered myself up as a husband and father.

Didn't work.

My following the rules didn't cause anyone else to fall in line and do their part; didn't bring me anyone who followed the rules laid out for her. I was one of the lucky ones, though, for various and sundry reasons I won't get into here. The point is -- your way didn't work. Following the rules, being a good little beta, and doing what I was told brought only misery and pain.

Heh- "Always treat women with respect- if it wasn't for a woman spending 9 months as an HR intern and 16 hours laboring over a PowerPoint presentation, you wouldn't even be alive." Said no woman ever.

But when the chips are down, emotions are high, and their hamsters need to defend the Female Imperative, then even the staunchest feminists will argue that women's intrinsic societal value comes from their collective childbearing capabilities.

No wonder I find it so difficult to communicate with you, it's nearly like a clash of cultures.

You've been trying to communicate?

It appears you've been trying to instruct and are absolutely clueless how unqualified you are considering your horrible lack of understanding of the socio-sexual natures of men and women. So you come here speaking jibberish with no credibility or longevity with a consistent "man up" message and shaming rants and expect to be treated anything other than rudely? You've consistently ignored the advice to shut up for a while and actually attempt to learn something - one demonstrates that they're trying to learn by asking questions and having appreciative responses that reveal they've gained knowledge/wisdom. You lump all of the men here in one category which is just ridiculous. If you'd actually pay attention, you'd know that the men here run the gamut from bull Alpha to normal every day Delta to bitter Gamma to Omega/Sigma.

What's most curious is what is in it for you. How are you so interested in this blog that you return day after day with the same incoherent comments? Have you ever read How to Win Friends and Influence People? You really should. If you never actually participate in a conversation with anyone but instead just blurt out what you just have to say, you will never be able to influence people. You especially will only be greeted with disdain with the non stop insults. You have demonstrated yourself to be such a typical irrational woman who flips her lid and starts hurling blanket insults then stomps her feet and wonders why no one will be nice to her.

Your very comment accusing those who read here of not knowing how the world lives is in itself the epitome of pretentiousness. How do you not realize how stupid you sound?

Women aren't pursuing career and education as a *response* to male abdication of responsibility. It has quite clearly happened the other way 'round.

Why, I never implied it had not. What I imply is that it will not reverse course, not so long as even your own beloved "prophets" perpetuate the cycle.

Motes and logs, after all.

Well my Lordship, your effluvient mix of rhetoric and snark gives off many odd odors. Perhaps in your haste to appear clever you are tripping over yourself. Just like Roissy's GBFM commenter, you can be funny but the schtick wears thin when attempting to be serious.

No, I cannot imagine why a woman would think her only value and only security lay in fending for herself as the men do. I cannot fathom why a woman would long to be regarded as something other than a parasite, a liability, or a ball-and-chain. After all, what self-respecting woman would aspire to be regarded as more than a slave, a toy, or a leech?

Why would any woman believe the blissful dreaming-aloud of men who speak of sterilising themselves to avoid being "sucked dry by chilimony", of replacing Woman with artificial wombs and sexbots, of "going their own way" and "spinning plates" and never marrying?

Looks an awful lot like you are implying that women's shift toward career and education is a reaction to male abdication. If you did not intend that, then I don't know what you are implying.

By the way, my beloved prophets come from the Old Testament. You seem to have conflated my understanding of what is going on for my approval of same. Classic rhetorical technique when one is more concerned with scoring points than actual understanding.

From your past ravings, I gather that you are a Christian who wants a return to some sort Biblical patriarchy. Surprise--I indeed want the same, and have lived a life in keeping with that, including marriage and children. So we are nominally on the same team, except you seem to assume anyone commenting in agreement to anything on one of the "Game" blogs is a sullen MGTOW or stinking player manslut who wants to steal your daughter and wife. Try reducing arc of your machine gun spray, just a little.

Yes Sarah, but see, unlike you, I have absolutely no interest in currying favor. In fact, I think constantly sucking up to these men and encouraging them to revel in their perceived victimhood is a bit cruel and immoral.

Yes Sarah, but see, unlike you, I have absolutely no interest in currying favor. In fact, I think constantly sucking up to these men and encouraging them to revel in their perceived victimhood is a bit cruel and immoral.

Which demonstrates how you have not shut up long enough to have a clue what you are talking about and are again lumping all readers into the same category. It's ludicrous.

What is your interest? To yell "THIS IS WRONG, LISTEN TO ME" on every post? Why would anyone here want to listen to you? You typically have one coherent comment out of ten that you post. The incongruity in your comments and your lack of any sort of agreeable commentary makes conversation with men (as a woman) impossible.

That you would think I've had a message encouraging men to revel in their perceived victim-hood is hilarious. If you only had a clue the conversations commenters like Deti and I have had - Where.I've.learned.a.thing.or.two - because I shut up long enough to listen to what he has to say.

I miss Stingray. She was so good at eloquently informing women how they can best change themselves to be someone men would consider communicating with/listening to.

Feminist Zero was Mary Wollstonecroft, mother of Mary Shelley, in the late 18th Century. Feminist 1 was that most Christian of Poets, Wlliam Blake collaborator with Wllstonecroft. Both sought to destroy marriage to enable free sex. That is all.

Vox's proposal that people not be educated reminds me of a person I read about who didn't want 3rd world countries to become technologically developed, because they thought the villages they lived in were so quaint, and so much better for the environment. Someone then asked this person if, when visiting the 3rd world countries with these villages, if they had ever spent so much as 24 hours, or even overnight, in one of these 'quaint' villages, without electricity or plumbing. To which the person responded that they had not, they had stayed in a hotel. In other words, such people as this person and Vox want to be educated and to live in a hotel, while everyone else is kept ignorant and lives in a village.

"Vox want(s) to be educated and to live in a hotel, while everyone else is kept ignorant and lives in a village."

Ann Morgan is totes right about this one. Without highly-educated women and their inventiveness, no family would even have electricity and running water in their homes. NOt to mention all the highly-educated female linemen and plumbers it takes to maintain such an infrastructure...I know this is true because something Anne once said about a sewer system. What's next, Vox telling us he envisions a world without highly-educated female auto mechanics, where everyone has to walk? That's crazy talk!

I'm sure Doorstop will prove his devotion to the principle of denying education and other rights to people who have no 'use' for them by demanding gun control laws where one must first prove a 'need' for a gun, and other laws requiring a prefrontal lobotomy to be performed on all males who do not perform a job directly essential to maintaining infrastructure.

How many women go to university taking the place of a man only to then refuse to work in that profession later? In the UK 60% of female doctors quit in the first 10 years...hence the disaster that is the NHS. My wife quit working only 5 years after getting her degree...never went back....her degree was a total waste.

Degrees are not luxury items to be purchased for women by some man. They actually have a very positive effect on the overall economy....at least they used to. But not since degrees have been so dumbed down that they are now worthless.

Vashine, yep. The important thing is to recognize that a troll has absolutely no interest in what you say -- probably won't even read it except to skim for some words from which to build the next comment to try to lead you a bit further into the weeds. The troll will never engage in honest argument; so your carefully crafted, devastatingly logical, well-researched response will be wasted (unless you think it may be useful to other readers). Also, the troll gets off on every response that plays into its frame; so just imagine the troll sitting there giggling, maybe wanking over how much fun it's having with you, and it's easier to ignore it or stick with outright ridicule.

An RSS reader that lets you filter on things like author name is indispensable.

"The important thing is to recognize that a troll has absolutely no interest in what you say.."

I actually do have an interest in what you have to say, but that doesn't mean that what you say is an established truth. If fact, sometimes what you say is such an obvious and blatant bit of self deception, it's puzzling that you can't see it yourself.

Keep it up, Ann... every day, no matter what the point, you chime in and provide a perfect example of what Vox is talking about...... you're so reliable.

I would imagine that this is why Vox not only allows, but actively encouages the two resident trollettes to keep posting their verbal vomitus here. There's no better confirmation of the truth of our positions than the forensic evidence that comes straight from the cesspool itself.

And, funnily enough, the harridan was eschewing the use of "shame" as the seed of all evil (or some other manner of utter shite) just the other day, on the "Cooption" thread HERE.http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2014/07/cooption.html#comment-form

"I don't do shame, Trust. In the garden one of the first things God says after the fall is, "I did not give you a spirit of shame." Shame is a destructive thing and pretty much the root of all evil in the world. "

Now hush, little girl. Go pray for forgiveness for being such an evil, destructive twat.

I notice that nobody has addressed my point that those who wish to take rights away from others (such as the right to a gun or an education) always include an exception for themselves and their special friends. Instead, I see claims that women don't 'need' an education. Fair enough, but this is but another usual tactic of those who want to take rights away from others. For instance 'you don't NEED a gun, because you aren't a police officer, a soldier, a politician, or a celebrity'.

Calling me a 'troll' will not change the fact that by using them, you are agreeing with every argument that liberals use to take rights away from people. And you think that these arguments -once you've agreed that they are valid - then won't be used to take away rights from you, that you might value, because why? Bible?

As for dysgenics, Voxy dear, there was a study done recently in England. Muslim immigrants there have a number of bad recessive genes 33 times higher than any other group in England. Since women have fewer rights in Islam than almost anywhere else, the real evidence would suggest that a LACK of women's rights is what is actually dysgenic.

You have now proven that you know as little about genetics as you do about dairy farming, chemistry, mathematics, and most other things.

I think that at some point, education of women is also dyscivic. I have my own personal anecdote. A friend of mine has a wife with a PhD in chemistry. A useful STEM degree, not some gender studies trash. She is clearly very intelligent. She is also no feminist, being a traditional and observant Jewish full time mother and housewife with (around) seven children, all still at home. But that's the problem.

This PhD, granted in England (need it be said that it was subsidized), doesn't just serve no purpose. It was a total waste. She will never use the training she received. It would have been better had the state not wasted the resources on her education at all. But if it is going to subsidize someone's education anyway, it would be far better to subsidize a male's education, as the probability of him using it, even participating in the workforce in any way at all, would be far higher.

Let the record show that Ann Morgan thinks this is a fair argument, and yet she also thinks that denying a university education to a woman is basically the same as forcing a prefrontal lobotomy on a man.

Ann, the thought had never crossed my mind before, but perhaps I need a gun to keep idiots from trying to rip out part of my brain just to level the playing field.

An interesting observation, but what the Taiwan data actually demonstrates is that this sort of effect, while real, is too small to matter in the modern world. A general IQ drop of ~1 point per generation means it will take at least 60 years for any significant change to accumulate, and well over a century for it to become especially large.

Does anyone really think current social trends can last that long? Even if Western civilization doesn't undergo another radical transformation before then, social trends are dynamic things that rarely last more than a generation or two. Upper-class women seeking their dream alpha will invent some new social engineering scheme to try to square the circle every decade or two, and their bad effects aren't all going to line up in the same direction.

Not to mention that a hundred years of tech advance will produce disruptions that swamp anything that could arise from mere differential selection. Genetic engineering for higher intelligence. Artificial wombs, so wealthy women can reproduce without the hassle of pregnancy. Drugs to treat bored housewife 'depression' and 'low libido', which could have all sorts of strange and unpredictable side effects since the causes of those problems are so widely misunderstood. Anyone who thinks the pill was technology's last big reshaping of the reproductive landscape isn't thinking it through.

So while dysgenic effects caused by social trends may be an interesting curiosity, they're not worth a lot of attention if your goal is to understand where society is headed.

**Let the record show that Ann Morgan thinks this is a fair argument, and yet she also thinks that denying a university education to a woman is basically the same as forcing a prefrontal lobotomy on a man. **

I did not claim they were the same thing. I claimed that the argument being used to justify the denial of a university education to women, on supposed lack of 'need' and failure to 'contribute to the infrastructure of civilization' could also be used to justify denying guns to most men, or forcibly performing prefrontal lobotomies on them.

At any rate, your position is absurd, the view of women here seems to be as if people thought they were constructed like Master-Blaster from Mad Max, Beyond Thunderdome. In case you don't know who that is, Master-Blaster was a 3 foot midget engineering genius who rode around on the back of a 7 foot mental retard. The powers that be where he lived wanted to dump the body, keep the brain. Possible in that case, but in the case of people here, they seem to think that the genotype and phenotype of a high quality brain in women can somehow be seperated, such that they can deny what is a highly intelligent brain an education it craves, in many cases, literally spit on such women, yet despite treating such women in this way, society is still 'entitled' to their genes, and the women will of course be eager to 'submit' to men who are most likely their intellectual inferiors and pop out babies to benefit a society that treats them like shit. Because bible, or something. I suppose disregarding, oppressing, or hating the actual person but considering their 'genes' to be sacred makes sense from you lot, as it justifies banning abortion, but doing so is actually a particular perversion of morality written about by CS Lewis in 'Out of the Silent Planet'

"in the case of people here, they seem to think [...] they can deny what is a highly intelligent brain an education it craves, in many cases, literally spit on such women, yet [...] society is still 'entitled' to their genes, and the women will of course be eager to 'submit' to men who are most likely their intellectual inferiors and pop out babies to benefit a society that treats them like shit. Because bible, or something. I suppose disregarding, oppressing, or hating the actual person but considering their 'genes' to be sacred makes sense from you lot"

Once again, you miss the point Ann. I'm not sure that anyone else is even reading this, but you seem to think that silence implies consent or at least concession so I'll write one last response and then you can continue to color us all however you see fit. The issue here isn't about denying PdD's to high-IQ women who "crave" education and knowledge. The issue is with moderately-intelligent women who crave social validation and security like women (and people in general) always have, but are now being indoctrinated that they can only honorably and intelligently achieve such by postponing, foregoing, or even disparaging domestic bliss and motherhood to pursue a pat on the back and a piece of accredited paper to hang on the wall of their future cubicle as they pay off their student loans. Perhaps if they do well enough in their careers and are also lucky enough to land a husband with equal or better status, IQ, and credentials, they'll be able to afford fertility treatments and day care in their mid-to-late 30's and truly "have it all" with their 1.5 children.

The next step in absurdity and dysfunction would be brainwashing women that the only honorable way to live is to pursue glory and/or Valhalla through a warrior's honest death on the battlefield. If you want to talk about actually spitting on someone, treating them like shit, and feeling entitled to their body and their genetics, it's hard to beat sending the able-bodied young men to function as canon-fodder for their nation's politicians.

A few points here:1. Explain exactly why society, or anyone else, has a specific right to have women have children, rather than doing something else they prefer.2. Explain why any woman with an IQ over 80 would - given any other alternative - sign up for the sort of arrangment Vox proposes for them, which includes (according to Vox) the right of their husbands to demand sex when they are in labor and kill their children.3. Explain how it is going to be possible to create a society that functions like a high-school popularity contest, such that ugly and unpopular people are locked away and/or abused, but NOT have the main goal of almost all women be social validation.4. Explain exactly which women most men are marrying, high IQ nerds, shy virginal religious women who want several children, or those with the best looks, who have those looks largely because they want social validation.

**If you want to talk about actually spitting on someone, treating them like shit, and feeling entitled to their body and their genetics, it's hard to beat sending the able-bodied young men to function as canon-fodder for their nation's politicians.** Possibly, although that is not the only place where people are being abused. But never mind that for now. Let's assume for the sake of argument that a highly intelligent young man knew that a particular woman belonged to a group that had sent him to war, and they had sent him there specifically because he was highly intelligent, while (during the time he was fighting in the war) giving free blow jobs to less intelligent men who were not sent to war. During that war, among other things, he was a POW under very unpleasant conditions for a lengthy period of time. Do you think upon his return to this country he'd be at all interested in siring children with that woman or any member of that group on the grounds that they or society 'needed' his superior genes for intelligence? Or would he tell them to go buy a strap on (so to speak) and get the idiots they had given all the free blow jobs to, to sire their future children?

Either intelligent women reproduce or our society becomes poor and destitute. Failure to reproduce is death by any term. So if educating women proves to be bad in the long run, then women aren't going to be educated for much longer.

Short of some miracle technology, it seems obvious that educating women isn't going to survive this century. Same thing with Roman women as well. They were educated sluts, Rome died.

**Either intelligent women reproduce or our society becomes poor and destitute. Failure to reproduce is death by any term. So if educating women proves to be bad in the long run, then women aren't going to be educated for much longer.

Short of some miracle technology, it seems obvious that educating women isn't going to survive this century. Same thing with Roman women as well. They were educated sluts, Rome died.**

It seems to me that basically, you don't want intelligent women educated, because you want them to be a combination of stupid enough to accept a very disadvantageous marriage contract, wherein the man gets all the sex he wants on demand, or to kill the children, and the woman gets to be a slave, and to have no alternatives other than to accept such a disadvantageous marriage contract.

Here's a thought - offer better terms in the marriage contract. Or is a man's right to force his cock into a woman in labor and kill their children more important than the 'survival of society'?

As for Rome, you haven't mentioned the numerous other problems leading to it's demise, such as debasing the currency. And who did that? Men. Men are doing exactly the same thing now. But it's probably easier to bitch about women, than to tell the male politicians that the printing press party is over and we need to return to hard currency. Basically, it's the same sort of cowardice that leads PETA to throw paint on old women wearing fur coats, but not motorcycle gangsters wearing leather jackets.

"Basically, it's the same sort of cowardice that leads PETA to throw paint on old women wearing fur coats, but not motorcycle gangsters wearing leather jackets."

Hahahahah...how high of an IQ does Ann claim to have again? Have you eaten a mink burger or a fox taco lately Ann? I'd be the last person to want to attribute logic to PETA, but even they're smart enough to know that protesting leather coats isn't going to stop people from slaughtering cows and sheep. And even if motorcycle gangster wore fur, I don't see them being mobbed by cameras or walking the red carpet....only way you're going to get on the evening news by dousing them with paint is if they actually do put you in the hospital.

As for the rest the rest of your arguments, especially that nonsense that started with something about women sending mend into battle and giving out free blow jobs: TL;DR, WTF?! How about just repeatedly copying-and-pasting this: "Men are horrible, murderous, controlling sex fiends and are responsible for most of the world's problems. Also, I'm smarter and better than Vox and should be more popular than him."

Doorstop - you can handwave all you want, but you are avoiding the real issues. Which is that despite Vox's handwaving to the contrary, looks and brains are more likely to come seperately in women than together. Any farmer can tell you that it is a lot easier to breed animals for one good trait, rather than two. It's easier to breed cattle to be either good milk producers OR good beef producers, rather than trying to get both traits in one single breed of cattle. Ditto for chickens, it's easier and more likely to have a chicken that is either a good layer OR a good meat producer rather than both. Ditto for marijuana, a cannabis plant will either be a good fiber producer or a good THC producer, but generally not both.

That being the case, the REAL problem isn't that 'educated intelligent women aren't reproducing'. The real problem is that given a choice between looks and brains in women, 95% of all men will choose looks, every time. If you want to solve the problem, maybe what REALLY needs to be done is some sort of 'stag shaming' for men who have obviously chosen a woman with poor moral and intellectual qualities based on her looks.

Oh, no wait. That would require courage and integrity. It's easier to hand and bible wave and blame people physically weaker than you, rather than someone who might break your nose.

"....looks and brains are more likely to come seperately in women than together.."

Ann sweetie, you're wrong. That is entirely a social construct. Women have learned to dumb themselves down to be more appealing to men, to not scare them off outright, but that doesn't mean that attractive women are stupid. It is women who promote that stereotype, not men.

A great deal of "unattractiveness" is a self inflicted wound women put upon their own selves to subconsciously keep men at bay. It's insulation, protection, and it's fueled by this false female inspired myth that says you can't be intelligent and attractive at the same time.

"Doorstop - you can handwave all you want, but you are avoiding the real issues...The real problem is that given a choice between looks and brains in women, 95% of all men will choose looks, every time. If you want to solve the problem, maybe what REALLY needs to be done is some sort of 'stag shaming' for men who have obviously chosen a woman with poor moral and intellectual qualities based on her looks.

And now, Ann Morgan, you've finally exposed your true issue with all of this. And since you've already shown yourself to be solipsistic, I'm guessing that this is mostly about you- that you are likely an unmarried, childless women who considers herself to be unattractive, and your sense of self-worth is derived mostly from your IQ and college degree(s). You likely view any statement that mothers could be more valuable to society than women with degrees, as a direct and personal attack on you. And not only that, but you double-down on blaming men by saying that we should be shamed into ditching our genetic programming to chase intelligent, educated women over women who outwardly display physically healthy and fertile genetic traits.

I wonder if you also believe women should be shamed into chasing men who are shorter than them and less capable of supporting women and their offspring? But I digress. You are entitled to your solipsistic opinion, but the notion that myself or anyone else here should take it seriously (or even respond to you) is ludicrous. Thanks for playing though.

Doorstop wrote: **And not only that, but you double-down on blaming men by saying that we should be shamed into ditching our genetic programming to chase intelligent, educated women over women who outwardly display physically healthy and fertile genetic traits**

Well, that might very well be, Doorstop, but you can't have it both ways. Either you want intelligent women to have children, or you want men to 'follow their genetic programming' and go chasing after the pretty women. You can't have it both ways, and since you have just admitted that men go for looks, then the intelligent women aren't going to be having children anyways, so you might as well let them be educated if they want.

**You likely view any statement that mothers could be more valuable to society than women with degrees, as a direct and personal attack on you.**

No. I have no opinion on whether a mother (presumably without a degree, although the two are not mutually exclusive) is more valuable than a woman with a degree. Some women are very poor mothers, some women are maleducated. What I do view as a personal attack on me is the desire to take away my (or anyone's) right to an education.

**I wonder if you also believe women should be shamed into chasing men who are shorter than them and less capable of supporting women and their offspring?**

You're handwaving. The premise is that it is supposedly necessary for intelligent women to have children for the good of society. You have admitted that men are genetically programmed to go after women for looks, not intelligence, and rejected my solution that men should be shamed into pursuing intelligent women rather than pretty, stupid ones. Which is typical, every sacrifice must be made by someone else, anyone else, rather than white men. Rather than prove my solution wouldn't work (other than your not wanting to engage in any sacrifices on your own part for the supposed good of society) you then tossed out a red herring that women should be shamed into pursuing men who are less fit, which really makes no sense at all.

GG wrote: **A great deal of "unattractiveness" is a self inflicted wound women put upon their own selves to subconsciously keep men at bay. It's insulation, protection, and it's fueled by this false female inspired myth that says you can't be intelligent and attractive at the same time.**

GG, if you are 16 years old and several people come up to your parents and independently ask them: "What is that, a giant 9 year old?" and you have problems with your teeth and jaws that require surgery to fix, that really is not sexual attractiveness, at an age when most girls are at their peak sexual attractiveness. Neither, however, is it 'obesity' like the handwavers here like to claim.

GG: Regarding looks and brains coming together, they can, but if you study breeding of animals, you are more likely to find (and it's easier to breed for) two desirable traits seperately, rather than together. Part of the reason for that is the odds, if you roll several dice, it's easier to get either a pair of '5's or a pair of '6s' seperately, rather than both at the same time; part of it is that organisms are not a magic box, and have only so much energy and other resources to devote to any given trait or combination thereof. So if a chicken devotes more energy and nutrition to laying large eggs, it will have that much less to devote to putting on layers of meat onto it's breast and drumsticks, or vice-versa.

However, it was a momentary matter cheap fifa 14 coins that I came to realize life should be upheld and maintained by gratefulness. Then our heart will never feel solitary fifa 14 coins and have the sense of being loved. Only by stretching out our hands can we give the opportunity to others cheap fifa 14 coins to hold us!